How much open federal money is in the dataset right now? Headline aggregates: active SAM.gov contract opportunities (and how many still have an open deadline), Grants.gov opportunities by status (posted vs forecasted), and USAspending award records on file with their total dollar amount. [price: $0.001/call]
| Name | Required | Description | Default |
|---|---|---|---|
No arguments | |||
Changes observed during successful MCP inspections. Dates show when Glama detected each change.
Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?
No annotations are provided, so the description carries full burden for behavioral disclosure. It only describes the tool's output, not behavioral traits like read-only nature, rate limits, or effects on data. As a stats tool, it's clearly non-destructive, but this is implicit rather than stated.
Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.
Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?
The description is a single, well-structured sentence that front-loads the purpose and covers the key outputs. The price note is appended without clutter. Every part is informative and concise.
Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.
Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?
Given no parameters and no output schema, the description adequately covers the tool's function by listing the three aggregate categories. It could mention specific metrics (e.g., counts, dollar amounts) but already specifies 'active opportunities', 'open deadline', 'status', and 'total dollar amount', which is sufficient for a stats tool.
Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.
Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?
The input schema has zero parameters with 100% schema description coverage, so the baseline is 4. The description adds context about what the tool returns (three categories of aggregates), which is useful since there are no parameters to explain.
Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.
Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?
Description clearly specifies it provides headline aggregates of open federal money, including active SAM.gov contract opportunities, Grants.gov opportunities by status, and USAspending award records. It uses a specific verb ('aggregates') and resource ('open federal money'), and distinguishes from sibling tools like govcon_opportunity_search and govcon_opportunity_detail which focus on individual records.
Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.
Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?
The description implies use for high-level overviews ('How much open federal money...'), but does not explicitly state when to use this tool over siblings like govcon_opportunity_search. No when-not-to-use or alternative guidelines are provided, leaving the agent to infer context from the tool's function.
Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.
Add one secure layer between your agents and this server.
Each tool targets a distinct domain and specific action (e.g., FDA approvals vs clearances vs recalls; firmstanding business360 dossier vs search vs screen). Even overlapping concepts like 'business360' vs 'business360_lookup' are distinguished by input (UUID vs name+state). No two tools appear to do the same thing.
All tools use a consistent lowercase snake_case pattern with domain prefix (e.g., fda_*, firmstanding_*, fmcsa_*, govcon_*). Action words (search, lookup, screen, feed, stats) follow predictable usage. The naming is uniform and easy to parse.
38 tools is on the higher end but appropriate for a comprehensive government data gateway spanning multiple agencies and datasets. Each domain has a reasonable number of tools (e.g., FMCSA: 7, OFLC: 6). Could potentially be trimmed slightly, but overall well-scoped for the stated purpose.
The tool surface covers the major government data sources comprehensively: FDA (approvals, clearances, recalls), FMCSA (carrier census, safety, insurance, etc.), FSIS, DOJ/OFLC, OSHA/EPA/DOL enforcement, SEC insider filings, clinical trials, VA facilities/opportunities/vendors, and federal contracting. No obvious gaps for the stated gateway purpose.